Pawnee Plastics, Inc. v. American Sav. Co., 43579
| Citation | 313 N.W.2d 262,210 Neb. 131 |
| Decision Date | 11 December 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 43579,43579 |
| Parties | PAWNEE PLASTICS, INC., a Kansas corporation, Appellant, v. AMERICAN SAVINGS COMPANY, a Nebraska corporation, Appellee. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Contracts. A provision of a contract is ambiguous when, considered with other pertinent provisions as a whole, it is capable of being understood in more senses than one.
2. Contracts: Intent. Where a contract is ambiguous, the court must determine the intent of the parties and the ambiguity must be resolved so as to give effect to that intent.
3. Judgments: Appeal and Error. The judgment of the trial court in an action at law where a jury has been waived has the effect of a verdict of a jury and it will not be set aside unless clearly wrong.
Thomas Blount of Garber & Batt, Omaha, for appellant.
James B. Cavanagh of Erickson, Sederstrom, Leigh, Eisenstatt, Johnson, Kinnamon, Koukol & Fortune, P. C., Omaha, for appellee.
Heard before BOSLAUGH, McCOWN, and CLINTON, JJ., and SPENCER, Retired Justice, and BLUE, District Judge.
The plaintiff, Pawnee Plastics, Inc., filed an action against the defendant, American Savings Company, based on an alleged guarantee of payment for material supplied by plaintiff to Whitewater Marine Products, Inc. This alleged guarantee appeared in a letter from Wm. C. Ramsey, president of defendant company, which is as follows:
"February 19, 1975
Mr. Larry R. Nelson, Treasurer
Pawnee Plastics, Inc.
1444 South Tyler Road
Wichita, Kansas 67209
Dear Mr. Nelson:
This will confirm our telephone conversation of the past few days in which we advised you that American Savings Company will guarantee payment of your invoices to Whitewater Marine Products, Inc. as they come due.
We would like to limit our guarantee to payment of specific invoices issued, following shipment of material ordered on specific purchase orders of Whitewater Marine Products, Inc.
I believe the particular purchase order with which you are concerned at the moment is Whitewater Purchase Order # 5022 dated January 29, 1975 which is included in the guarantee.
At the time the letter was written, Whitewater Marine Products, Inc., was a wholly-owned subsidiary of American Savings Company and Ramsey was president of both of these corporations.
The trial court found that the language of the letter was ambiguous and allowed parol evidence to be introduced explaining the provisions of this instrument.
In a trial in which a jury was waived, the court determined that the guarantee only applied to payment of those invoices that were specifically approved by defendant. The court found that the specific invoices for material involved herein were not approved as required and entered a judgment for defendant. The motion for new trial was overruled and plaintiff appeals.
The threshold question is whether the terms of the letter which is relied upon by plaintiff are ambiguous or not, as a written instrument is only open to construction if it is ambiguous or, in a proper case, if there is fraud or mistake. Olds v. Jamison, 195 Neb. 388, 238 N.W.2d 459 (1976).
A provision of a contract is ambiguous when, considered with other pertinent provisions as a whole, it is capable of being understood in more senses than one. Frank McGill, Inc. v. Nucor Corp., 195 Neb. 448, 238 N.W.2d 894 (1976).
If the first paragraph of the letter were the entire body of the agreement, then the plaintiff would be correct that an unconditional guarantee existed. However, the second paragraph limits the guarantee. It states: "We would like to limit our guarantee to payment of specific invoices issued, following shipment of material ordered on specific purchase orders of Whitewater Marine Products, Inc."
The above paragraph refers to specific invoices and specific purchase orders. However, this paragraph does not further define to what specific invoices and specific orders the paragraph refers. Plaintiff construes the letter as if the second paragraph were not present, or at least as if the word "specific" were not present. "Specific," according to Black's Law...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Overland Constructors, Inc. v. Millard School Dist., School Dist. No. 17, Douglas County
...in determining into which of the various categories, if any, the M.U.D. charges should be placed. See, Pawnee Plastics, Inc. v. American Savings Co., 210 Neb. 131, 313 N.W.2d 262 (1981); Quinn v. Godfather's Investments, 213 Neb. 665, 330 N.W.2d 921 (1983); Hansen v. Circle Lake Development......
-
Craig v. Hastings State Bank
...other hand, a court will construe uncertain, indefinite, or ambiguous terms in a written contract. See, Pawnee Plastics, Inc. v. American Savings Co., 210 Neb. 131, 313 N.W.2d 262 (1981); Metropolitan Utilities Dist. v. Fidelity & Deposit Co., 200 Neb. 635, 264 N.W.2d 854 (1978); Timmerman ......
-
Lauritzen v. Davis
...from the instrument itself. As a result of this ambiguity, the instrument is open to construction. Pawnee Plastics, Inc. v. American Savings Co., 210 Neb. 131, 313 N.W.2d 262 (1981). Furthermore, in interpreting a written contract, the meaning of which is in doubt and in dispute, the court,......
-
Shadow Isle, Inc. v. Granada Feeding Co.
...Kansas-Nebraska Nat. Gas Co. v. Swanson Bros., 215 Neb. 398, 338 N.W.2d 774 (1983). In Pawnee Plastics, Inc. v. American Savings Co., 210 Neb. 131, 133, 313 N.W.2d 262, 264 (1981), we held that a contract provision "is ambiguous when, considered with other pertinent provisions as a whole, i......